On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 08:36:14AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 21:46 -0800, Paul Stewart wrote: > > > >> Of course, if this we actually happen to come across a device that needs > > >> this it could set a flag somehwere and mac80211 could re-configure the > > >> channel to non-HT on the assoc request, but right now I'd rather not > > >> worry about that since we're moving towards multi-channel and have no > > >> indication of such devices existing. Agree? > > > > > > Yeah, that works for me. > > > > Discussions seem to have come to an end here, however I'm not sure > > what we ended up deciding. :-) I see mention of HT+TKIP -- not sure > > I'm familiar enough with what the issues are there -- as well as > > pushing the channel configuration earlier and perhaps changes to the > > association process. Since I may not have a complete handle on all > > these adjacent issues, where do we want to go with the current change > > (fixes a real-life issue) and how do we want to stage that with > > respect to the other issues this seems to have brought to the surface? > > This discussion really side-tracked somewhat -- we were discussing a > better/different solution. I'm OK with your patch, but since I'll be > touching the code again to address the other things we talked about it'd > be great if you could test after that again, maybe in a week or two? So, should I wait to merge Paul's patch until after the merge window (i.e. only merge it for 3.5)? John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx might be all we have. Be ready. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
